To the point when I usually get his new book as soon as it is published. Forget paperbacks, I want it now.

Over a number of years, he's built up quite a following for largely writing variations on the same them.

A lonely man with unrealised ambitions, who cooks a lot of spaghetti, has a lost love and a past he cannot reconcile, with a new, enigmatic girl in his life, meanwhile a parallel world full of possibility begins to bleed into this one. There is a lingering sense of sadness and loss of what could have been, with a coming to terms of what is and what could be.

It's never boring because there is so much invention in every page. Every book is a surprise and delight, yet it always feels like coming home.

I think brands have something to learn from this.

I've often found that 'brands as people' is too artificial, not to mention that a rigid 'essence and values' model is just too limiting, especially for a fast moving media landscape like we have today.

But I've never bought 'brands as conversations' and 'relationships', which all the data tells us is, as far as generating business growth, hogwash.

I do like the idea of brands thinking of themselves more as content creators and less as advertisers. This shouldn't be news to anyone - the best advertising has never felt like an 'ad' it has always rewarded the viewer - but it's fair to say that more and more of what we do needs to add value where it shows up and what people are looking for.

But of course, we also know that brands need to build consistent, yet distinctive. Continously interesting, yet familiar.

I venture being more like a Murukami, with a big flexible theme, rather than a tight, never to be messed with brand triangle/onion/key.

I reckon brands should think of themselves more like authors than advertisers.

You know what you'll be getting from Murukami, a Phillip Roth or even a Stephen King or Hillary Mantel.

You will be entering a familiar world in which you'll be entertained and surprised .

In fact, you enter a particular world when you're listening to Radio 4 or watching HBO.

Maybe that's what we should start asking if we were an author, what are the constants in how we tell our story. Or what is the equivalent to 'Radio 4-ness' or 'HBO-ness'.

I'm not saying that people are sitting and waiting for our stuff (and I'm a heavy Murukami buyer, most folks will have read two of his books bet). But when we do stuff that hopefully get's us noticed by folks that don't care, it needs to build up a picture, a world, over time.

If you like, boil down any Lego construction, no matter how amazing, it's made of the same simple collection of bricks.

August 08, 2014

I feel very lucky to be a planner/strategist or whatever you fancy calling it these days. I find it continually interesting and challenging and have come across some lovely, talented people.

But there are some things about the job that drive me up the wall. Tiny next to upsides of the job - anyone doing this job is incredibly fortunate to be doing this rather than real work.

Bu just like the only who can moan about my mother in law is my wife, I reserve the right to good naturedly point out the increbibly daft.

1. The tried and tested methodology of using human relationships as a metaphor for how people buy brands. You know, stuff like 'creating brand love'. 'Like marriage the secret is to show you care'. When the most appropriate human relationship for how most people buy brands is the annoying stalker who won't leave you alone no matter how much you try and ignore him.

In fact it's not even that. It's that person in meeting you know you've met, you recognise the face but can't remember much about.

2. The habit of talking about brands like they're people. It's OK up to point of course, but like any 'model' it's only there as a representation, not fact. Loads of scientists have models of how stuff works, but when new evidence or insight comes to light, they develop the model.

A rigid brand onion no one can mess with, based on a tenuous comparison between an intangible impression in folks' heads and real, capricious human behaviour seems plain daft.

3.The worship of the brand per se. Too many planning folks seem to hide under the comforting blanket of brand scores, rather than actual business performance.

It's lovely not actually having to prove you sold anything, but eventually just shifting salience etc will get you fired, even the biggest, dumbest client companies.

4.Intelligent fools. You know, the poor sods who have been taught that complex language and even more complex powerpoints gives them gravitas and makes them look clever. It really doesn't .

5.The over-use of culture. It's quite right when planning folk bring cultural insight to the table. You know, what matters in real lives rather than fake focus groups. But while the context of real lives to frame a task is a must, there's lots of over-use of how 'were going to change/influence/make culture'.

You're really not.

With very, very few exceptions, you're going to create stuff that might actually get noticed because it has some relevance and adds some value - a few people might interact with it to amplify your reach, but it's rare you have an Old Spice Guy on your hands.

Even for the people who made the Old Spice Guy.

6.Mistaking what interesting to planners for what is interesting to real people. Thinkbox did some usueful research on the difference between media folk and the public at large, in terms of media habits and consumption.

It's pretty big.

So it the gulf between what media folks think people do and what they actually do. No wonder we see lots of obscure ads with clever references, genius apps no one uses and lots of augmented reality and such left untouched.

Not enough planning folk get the bus, read the Sun or watch Corrie or Keeping with the Kardashians. Our job is not suprise and delight other agency folks, it's to get noticed by people who think Mrs Browns Boys is funny and have never watched Game of Thrones.

7.Seeing the brief and the strategy as the idea. I remember being taught at an APG thingy that a brief is 'your ad to the creative department'.

I dislike this sentiment as it suggests a brief is a piece of craft that should be worshiped all of itself. Most creatives barely read it to be honest. They remember the briefing. It should feel a great start and juicy challenge - the more it feels like a problem to be solved rather than an unchangeable solution, the more folks will want to work on it.

In later years, I've found that a broad direction to talk to media owners is far better than 'give us a price for this'. I'm not as clever as YouTube or the Guardian. Like with creatives, you would be stupid not to take advantage of the brains of some really clever people who REALLY DO influence culture.

I'm talking about good creatives of course. I can't help you with the useless ones who ignore briefs AND can't get any good ideas - yet they are celebrated as untouchable Gods.

Just as there are media owners who come in an bombard you with chart after chart of the bleeding obvious.

8. Competitive planners. Many of us have been brought up to own the thinking. That doesn't work in real practise. Generosity does. That means sharing your thoughts, but also spotting someone else's greatness, using it and fully giving them credit.

That goes for agencies working together. It's tough of course, you want the client to value your input, and it's really annoying when you've had an idea and credit gets lost on the chaos of getting an intregrated campaign out the door. But it's not as frustrating as getting fired when you're seen as not being able to get on with your clients' other partners.

I'm sure folks I've worked with would accuse me of much of the above too, we're all guilty I suppose. I wonder what I've missed (the habit making lists, planners who blog?).

August 04, 2014

They are mostly a waste of time. Unless you want to get buy in from members of an external or external team by making feel part of the idea creation. But that, of course, takes very careful meeting design and a masterclass in moderation.

There's simply too much evidence from all sorts of psychology that they don't work.

I won't bore you with the evidence, but read it here if you're interested. Take it from years of the collective experience of great folks I've worked with - brainstorms should be avoided by the plague.

There is a school of creativity that's about the solid, hard graft of the individual. Start with stuff that that isn't much good, then continuously work out what's wrong with it until you get something ace. Work that emerges, evolves through sheer patience and determination.

But there is an easier way.

If you're in a hurry, take a small amount of people, I mean no more than four, away from the usual office environment for an hour. Clever people who trust each other, with slightly different skills. Present a clear problem and just talk. That's right, a simple conversation.

Because if you trust each other, you don't have to bother with that, 'any idea is a good idea'. You can be honest about what is ace and what is dreadful - and take rejection on board.

Because small teams bounce off each other while big groups stifle.

Because a change of scenery immediately invigorates the brain.

Because it's the sparks that come from people who fill each others gaps that matter.

And in the longer term, talk about the project all the time with the team. It's the conversations that generate ideas. You just need to the awareness and humility to spot when someone else has a great idea, and the generosity to acknowledge it.

And, from a personal perspective, I'm rubbish at thinking in my head, but okay at thinking out loud. The act of writing things down too early destroys my thought process, but talking it through seems to when ideas finally come out of my tiny brain. I literally talk ideas into coming out of their hiding places. I suspect I'm not the only one.

You just need to THEN write them down before they disappear like a puff of smoke.